ribuck

A few years ago, it was a running joke that Stefan seemed to be trying out a different microphone in every video. He's very aware of audio quality. There's a podcast somewhere where he talks about the hardware and software that he uses.

That's an interesting question, which I've never thought about before. I'm using "condemn" to mean "express complete disapproval of". This is sometimes called "moral condemnation". I realise that "condemn" has a second meaning of "to declare something as inevitable" e.g. "to condemn someone to die" but I'm not using the word in that meaning. I think it's important to condemn what is morally wrong. If someone is doing something that is morally wrong, and no-one condemns it, then everyone who knows it's wrong might assume that they are the only ones, and those doing the wrong thing might assume that their behavior is not disapproved of by others.

I don't think anyone here calls for condemnation of those who are given benefits by the state. I think the condemnation is reserved for those who use aggression to operate the system.

Thanks for your kind comments, Juan. Unfortunately I lost contact with the highschool friend many years ago. I've tried to track him down several times, but no-one seems to have any recent news of him. After someone becomes homeless with no contact address, it's easy to lose touch. I had already lost touch with him once before, then out of the blue he phoned me one day. Unfortunately it was just as a taxi arrived to take me to the airport and I couldn't talk long. No problem, he said, he would phone me again in a couple of days. But I never heard from him again. Of course I have regretted ever since that I didn't give him the time when he may have needed it. I was flat broke at the time, and my flight was for starting a new job that I had landed in another city, and if I'd missed the flight I couldn't have afforded another ticket, so at the time it seemed logical for me to catch my flight and to talk to him again a couple of days later, but sadly it didn't happen. I hope your friend's treatment is successful. It can be. I know a doctor who lost confidence in his work ability and stopped turning up to work, then after a while he lost confidence in everything and would not even leave his house. He checked himself into a psychiatric hospital. I could not imagine what the hospital could do that would help him in his situation. And yet, somehow, eight weeks later he came out happy and full of confidence and energy, and resumed a successful career and lifestyle. He was more of an acquaintance than a friend, and I didn't feel comfortable asking him too many detailed personal questions about the treatment, but I found his transformation remarkable. I do think people who admit themselves have an enormously greater chance of a positive outcome than those who are forcibly committed.

I asked three questions of Nathan, in attempt to cover all of the possibilities. I would be interested in his reply, if he wishes to post one. If you see an allegory (or analogy), that's fine. If not, that's fine too. I'm not trying to push an analogy onto anyone. I live in Europe, and I find the whole American "tip the bartender" thing a bit weird anyway. However, I don't think I've ever met a bartender who would return a 50 cent tip to me out of genuine concern for my economic wellbeing. I'm sorry that you discern hatred here, but I don't feel any hatred. I don't know what more I can add.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to this thread, not to Facebook.

It's not obvious, unless your lifetime receipts exceed the taxes and levies that have been extracted from you. What if you were to make a public declaration inviting any taxpayer to contact you so that you could return the share that came from them? Each person's share would probably be under a penny, so the gesture would be largely symbolic, but sometimes symbolic gestures are important.

Matt, please don't confuse rational discussion with hate. I certainly don't hate Stef or FDR in any way. I wouldn't use the word "manipulate" here. Of course Stef wants to encourage donations, and of course he hopes to increase the number and size of donations. That's how he gets his income, and there's nothing wrong with that. Personally I think he's likely to be more successful by being humble and expressing gratitude for even the smallest donation, and honing his empathy to the point where he appreciates why he gets these $2 donations, and honing his accounting systems so that he can process small donations efficiently. For sure! Stef's worst characteristics are better than many people's best characteristics. But that doesn't mean people should idolise him as perfect. Anyway, Matt, I'd be interested to know what you think about the motives of the barman and the 50 cent tip.

Do you think that bartender was sad that you gave a 50 cent tip? Do you think his empathy led him to honestly think that you actually needed the money more than he did? Do you think the bartender was saying this because he has found it to be an effective way to apply social pressure to encourage larger tips?

I think a 1% donation rate is enough to be counted as a success. If 1% of the people who look at a store window, or walk past a market stall, buy something then that's a reasonable response rate. A 1% click-through rate on an internet advertisement is considered a success. Podcast donations are not really comparable to church donations. For starters, a church has a limited capacity, so it must gear its business model to worthwhile donations from a substantial proportion of its "customers". A podcast, on the other hand, can potentially reach millions of people, which opens the door to business models based on smaller donations from a smaller proportion of a much larger group of potential donors. There are bloggers who are doing OK from Flattr buttons on their blogs. They might only get a few cents from each click, but Flattr aggregates the donations and makes a payment each month. Also, the marginal cost of a non-donor is very small with a podcast. If the listener is getting the podcast from your own server, there is of course a marginal cost. But if the listener is getting the podcast from YouTube, the marginal cost to the podcaster is near-enough zero. In this case, the extra listeners increase the reach of the podcast and increase the number of other listeners that it will attract, some of whom will donate. It's often said that the biggest economic problem in the internet age is obscurity. With a larger group of followers, additional income streams will open up. A large source of income for many churches is legacies. It might be worth encouraging people to leave something in their will. Many people, particularly those without children, have no use for their assets after they die and will be happy to leave them to a worthwhile cause. They just need a bit of encouragement. Of course it helps the churches that the average age of their congregation is quite high Finally, if a liberty-oriented website does not accept Bitcoin donations, it's hardly valid to complain about the costs associated with receiving small PayPal donations.

I guess we have a postcount because it's the default for this forum software. I'd be happy for the forum to drop the postcount. As far as I'm concerned, "quality" is important but "quantity" has no relevance. On the other hand, some forums have a "Thanks" button and a "thanks count". That would be worthwhile.

When I mentioned a conclusion, I didn't mean it like the only conclusion. I meant it like say you have come to an epiphany, like I will no longer be passive aggressive towards my lover because its counter intuitive, or something along those lines. I don't think I've experienced anything that I would describe as an epiphany. Just a gradual refinement of my understanding of life and my attitude towards it. I discovered libertarianism in my teens, and it seemed "obvious" that the initiation of force is wrong and that property should be respected. But it took me another 35 years to make the journey from libertarianism to voluntaryism. I'm a slow learner! I have always known that spanking is violence, and that it's wrong. But I never expressed that in words until after I heard my sister mention she doesn't use violence on her son. At that point I realised that there was no reason why I should not say that to others too. I suppose that might count as a "mini-epiphany" of sorts. Something I've become aware of as I go through my fifties is that I'm now slower to pick up new ideas, but I'm better at using the knowledge and wisdom that I've accumulated. This makes evolutionary sense: people need to accumulate knowledge and wisdom before applying it. I'm not just referring to philosophical matters, but also to more mundane things like money management where I feel I was in my 40s before I crossed the divide from "mediocre" to "capable". About time! But like I said, I'm a slow and gradual learner. As for the high school friend that I mentioned ... he never managed to hold down a job or have a satisfying relationship with a female. At some point he descended into rambling paranoia and was committed to a mental institution where he was treated with drugs and electro-convulsive therapy. A very sad and tragic decline. As for camping, I don't know if I can make any suggestions other than to join a local club and start doing it. But I feel the activity doesn't become deeply satisfying (on an intellectual/philosophical level) until one starts doing multi-day wilderness trips. Long enough for everyone's preconceived notions of society to be sufficiently distant that they can be put aside for a while. A wilderness trip is itself a wonderful form of practical anarchy. Sure there's a "leader", but he leads by respect rather than force, and if he loses that respect he knows that the group will follow a different leader. All of the interactions on the trip are peaceful and voluntary. If someone wants you to do something, you don't have to do it and there are no consequences - other than the risk of peaceful ostracism by exclusion from future trips. So, because people enjoy the activity they are incentivised to co-operate. Anyway Juan, thanks for your kind comments. I hope others will also respond to your original post.

The great thing about this is: when you drop the shackles of "Just fucking do it", you come to realise that there are things you actually want to do and are driven to do, and you will do them. Instead of doing all the time-wasting things as a way of not doing the things you think you should "just fucking do", you can do the things you actually find worthwhile.

At this point I should mention that I am in my 50s. I suppose it started in High School, when I became friends with a guy who came from a difficult family background. My own family was warm, loving and supportive, but I was really just coasting, going with the flow. He had a burning thirst for understanding of himself and the world around him, and some of that rubbed off on me. I've journalled and introspected on and off, with different degrees of intensity, over the years. Sometimes other things (e.g. babies or career) took front stage for a while. That's interesting, I never assumed there would be (or should be) a conclusion. Isn't the quest for self-knowledge an ongoing lifetime process? Groups on the internet are great for sharing knowledge, but I'm not very good at using them to discuss ideas. Even though I spend a lot of time on the internet, I much perfer verbal in-person interaction. My favorite group has been a bushwalking club. If you go into the wilderness for a few days with a group of like-minded people, it's easy to get past the superficial chit-chat and into the interesting stuff. And nothing beats the communal cooking-fire in the evenings for a relaxing environment that fosters honest and open interaction. Another group of people I have found who are generally thoughtful, intelligent and aware are the Bitcoiners. I think I understand why you're asking me these things, and I'm happy to answer them as best I can. But I'm probably not the best person to be answering them. I think there are many people here whose situation is (or was) closer to yours, and whose insights may be more valuable to you. Perhaps some of them will join this thread.

No, it doesn't. Well then what am I misinterpreting? Immediately above the figures "$1.50" and "$2.00" are the words "Donation Request", and to the right are various donation options including "One Time Donation" next to which it says "All support is deeply appreciated".

Well that's an interesting question! I don't know whether anyone can answer that question. If a person doesn't have much self-knowledge, how would that person be able to know how much self-knowledge they have? I've never been to therapy, and I don't think I ever would. I'm a do-it-yourself type of guy; I have journaled and I introspect deeply. I find it therapeutic to surround myself with thoughtful people with whom I can discuss things in an informal way.

Hi Juan, That's the conventional advice, but Stef has a wonderful podcast which shows how that advice ("Just Do It!") misses the point: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1WC6hNTONg:480:360] For me, that video was helpful and liberating.

It's weird that you can write a post but can't read one. I spent about 15 minutes reading Stef's post very carefully and thinking about the possible explanations that Stef mentioned for the $2 donation. I noticed that the list didn't cover all of the reasons why someone might donate $2. I considered talking about that in my post, but I decided it would be more relevant to point out that Stef's own website encourages small donations. The donation page doesn't suggest that these small donations might cause anxiety or unhappiness. Presumably you feel that I didn't correctly read Stef's post. Please feel free to enlighten me if you wish.

What an ungrateful post! The FDR donate page specifically suggests $1.50 and $2.00 as example donation amounts. There's no caveat saying "but whatever you do, don't send small amounts anonymously without a covering note".

It's interesting that Germany is not repatriating the gold it holds in London. I wonder why this is? Maybe there's a long-term contract in place.

It's not too late to change the adult's behaviour, when the child is 6 years old. The child will change their behaviour in response to the change in adult behaviour.

Sure, here's the page: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm Last year the US Treasury got given $7.7 million! I'm assuming that the efficiently-run government business is making a profit and therefore consumes no tax money. The inefficient government business is running at a loss, and needs to be continually fed tax dollars to keep operating. It's all a bit hypothetical, because I'm assuming that the government business receives no capital from the taxpayer, receives no monopolistic privileges from the government, etc. If that's the case, and it drives a competitor out of the market, then it must have been doing something better than the competitor. An inefficient competitor is not owed a market share by anyone. But I've never seen a government-run business that is more successful than its private competitor in a free market.

Sorry, I had missed the "If" at the beginning of your phrase "If it's sensible to use some kind of license". I thought you had said "It's sensible to use some kind of license". Apologies.

It's a common misconception that if you release your work to the public domain, others can stop you from using it. If you want to make this claim, please supply some references. All of NASA's space photos are in the public domain. I challenge you to copyright one yourself, so that you can stop NASA from using it!

A government gets money from: taxation license fees borrowing inflation donations e.g. TreasuryDirect It's also possible for a government to get money from a business that it runs. If it did this non-coercively this would not count as taxation. In practise, governments are rarely able to run businesses efficiently, so they legislate barriers to entry to provide the illusion of success. There was, however, an interesting experiment in Australia in the 1960s and 1970s. The government ran an airline (TAA) and a bank (the Commonwealth Bank). These were in direct competition with the equivalent private businesses. The private and government businesses made roughly equal profits. This was spun by the government like this: "We allow private banks and a private airline. However, to keep them honest, we operate a government bank and a government airline. This forces them to provide as good a service as the government does." In reality, it was competition from the private businesses that kept the government businesses honest. Having said that, both industries were heavily regulated and heavily protected from competition. The airlines were required by law to charge the same as each other, and to operate equivalent schedules, supposedly in the name of approximating perfect competition, but actually having the effect of minimising competition. Only one private airline was allowed to compete with the government airline. Multiple banks competed with the government, but of course it was nearly impossible to get government permission to start a new bank.